| Matter of Hannan Nicolas G. (Jose G.) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 08106 [78 AD3d 832] |
| November 9, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Hannan Nicolas G. St. Vincent's Services, Respondent;Jose G., Appellant, et al., Respondent. |
—[*1] Magovern & Sclafani, New York, N.Y. (Marion C. Perry of counsel), for petitioner-respondent. Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and Selene D'Alessio of counsel), attorneyfor the child.
In a proceeding to terminate parental rights pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, thefather appeals from so much of an order of fact-finding and disposition of the Family Court, KingsCounty (Grosvenor, J.), dated February 25, 2010, as, after fact-finding and dispositional hearings,found that he had permanently neglected the child, terminated his parental rights, and transferredcustody and guardianship of the child to St. Vincent's Services, Inc., and the Commissioner of SocialServices of the City of New York for the purpose of adoption.
Ordered that the order of fact-finding and disposition is affirmed insofar as appealed from, withoutcosts or disbursements.
Contrary to the father's contention, the Family Court properly found that St. Vincent's Services,Inc. (hereinafter the agency), exercised diligent efforts to strengthen the relationship between father andchild by, inter alia, scheduling weekly visits with the child and referring the father to parenting and angermanagement classes (see Matter of Star Leslie W., 63 NY2d 136, 142 [1984]; Matter of Shamel H., 61 AD3d 685,686 [2009]; Matter of Tynell S., 43AD3d 1171, 1172 [2007]; Matter ofJoquan Jomaine-Anthony V., 39 AD3d 868, 869 [2007]; Matter of Amy B., 37 AD3d 600,600-601 [2007]; Matter of Jennifer R.,29 AD3d 1005 [2006]). Notwithstanding the agency's efforts, the father failed to plan for hischild's future (see Social Services Law § 384-b [7] [c]). In addition, although the fatherattended the required classes, he never gained any insight into why he needed to attend the classes.Accordingly, the Family Court correctly found that the child was permanently neglected (see Matterof Nathaniel T., 67 NY2d 838, 842 [1986]; Matter of Tynell S., 43 AD3d at 1173;Matter of Joquan Jomaine-Anthony V., 39 AD3d at 869; Matter of Jennifer R., 29AD3d at 1006-1007).[*2]
Additionally, the Family Court properly determined that thebest interests of the child would be served by terminating the father's rights and freeing the child foradoption by his foster parent, with whom he had been living for many years (see Matter of TynellS., 43 AD3d at 1173; Matter of Joquan Jomaine-Anthony V., 39 AD3d at 869).
The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of ourdetermination. Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.